October 23, 2021, 12:45:52 PM
Dyatlov Pass Forum

Author Topic: Army Tactician - Definitely Ambush, potential events  (Read 2863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

March 18, 2021, 06:24:19 AM
Read 2863 times
Offline

armyeng


Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:

Likely sequence:

1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on. 

2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point. 

3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.

4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.

5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.

6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.

7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.

8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.

Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers
 

March 18, 2021, 09:41:09 AM
Reply #1

tenne

Guest
One of the group was an ex-soldier. Do you think that with the visibility that that location gave them, their attackers could sneak up on them? Or do you think an ex-soldier who served in WW2 would leave guard duty when he felt he was in danger of a sneak attack. Wouldn't everyone be alert, dressed appropriately in case something happened and have their meager weapons at hand?

I have never studied military tactics so I don't know.

I do agree they were murdered, my idea is posted under "my theory" but I don't think it happened there
 

March 18, 2021, 11:08:56 AM
Reply #2
Offline

RMK


Welcome to the Pass, armyeng.  Homicide theories of the Incident are certainly popular with some members of this community.  I consider homicide a credible possibility, but I have some misgivings about homicide theories myself, discussed in another thread, in which some homicide-theory proponents also make their case.

FWIW, my currently preferred theory is that the campsite that the search party found was staged...

Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything.
Most details of the scenario you propose have been proposed and discussed before, but I have to admit that this idea, that the hikers who froze to death were lying on the ground snow to stay out of the line of fire, is a new one to me.

2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up
Just FYI, there weren't any escaped prisoners in the Ivdel region at the presumed time of the Incident.
 

March 18, 2021, 12:09:10 PM
Reply #3
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:

Likely sequence:

1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on. 

2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point. 

3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.

4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.

5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.

6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.

7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.

8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.

Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers

Rubbish
DB
 

March 18, 2021, 02:41:16 PM
Reply #4
Offline

armyeng


One of the group was an ex-soldier. Do you think that with the visibility that that location gave them, their attackers could sneak up on them? Or do you think an ex-soldier who served in WW2 would leave guard duty when he felt he was in danger of a sneak attack. Wouldn't everyone be alert, dressed appropriately in case something happened and have their meager weapons at hand?

I have never studied military tactics so I don't know.

I do agree they were murdered, my idea is posted under "my theory" but I don't think it happened there

Thanks, I will read yours after this. It’s never 100% when it comes to tactics, but if I were the hiker I would prefer large open fields of vision to anyone trying to sneak up on us, especially if we were unarmed as we would need to escape. In the woods you are concealed, but that works both ways and the hikers camp site would be very easy to find from the tracks. At this point it may have been just a ‘hunch’ or precaution by the hikers to be vigilant and not a full blown panic of being ambushed. There could also have been no guard at all. It would be very easy to ambush the tent and beat them while inside it.
 

March 18, 2021, 02:52:57 PM
Reply #5
Offline

armyeng


Welcome to the Pass, armyeng.  Homicide theories of the Incident are certainly popular with some members of this community.  I consider homicide a credible possibility, but I have some misgivings about homicide theories myself, discussed in another thread, in which some homicide-theory proponents also make their case.

FWIW, my currently preferred theory is that the campsite that the search party found was staged...

Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything.
Most details of the scenario you propose have been proposed and discussed before, but I have to admit that this idea, that the hikers who froze to death were lying on the ground snow to stay out of the line of fire, is a new one to me.

2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up
Just FYI, there weren't any escaped prisoners in the Ivdel region at the presumed time of the Incident.

I was thinking hardened gulag guards or security patrols could have easily mistaken them for escapees/enemies (either political or military) - or perhaps there was concern of spies or other political elements documenting the gulags for political/military propaganda. Because the camp site wasn’t ransacked the attackers were definitely well equipped, also gulag type clothing found on location.

If you were getting shot at, you hunker down, if your attackers were pursuing you with rifles you would know if you got up and ran you would be shot, so this could explain why the hikers death locations are in a very straight line pretty close to the tent. Staying pinned down too long could lead to hypothermia. If it was dark and the attackers were pursuing and/or nearby (few hundred meters or less) a very frightened hiker/scared might just lay down and remain still until they left, which might have not happened.
 

March 18, 2021, 02:53:35 PM
Reply #6
Offline

armyeng


Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:

Likely sequence:

1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on. 

2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point. 

3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.

4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.

5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.

6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.

7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.

8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.

Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers

Rubbish

Your take - UFO?
 

March 18, 2021, 07:42:42 PM
Reply #7
Offline

Manti


I think the argument against an attack is the sheer remoteness of the area, that it can only be reached via a multi-day ski trip or aircraft, and the presumed white-out conditions that evening/night which would make it harder to find them, at least from the air.

But it does seem to fit the scene, though not really the injuries: some of them were uninjured, other had major trauma that would require more force than being hit with a rifle (Semyon, Lyuda, and to a certain extent Nikolai).However the documents found on the hikers like a passport, or the letter from the trade union... do make me wonder... Did they always carry those in their pockets? Or did they expect to have to "prove" to someone who they are and aren't?
 

March 18, 2021, 08:50:47 PM
Reply #8
Offline

KFinn


I think the argument against an attack is the sheer remoteness of the area, that it can only be reached via a multi-day ski trip or aircraft, and the presumed white-out conditions that evening/night which would make it harder to find them, at least from the air.

But it does seem to fit the scene, though not really the injuries: some of them were uninjured, other had major trauma that would require more force than being hit with a rifle (Semyon, Lyuda, and to a certain extent Nikolai).However the documents found on the hikers like a passport, or the letter from the trade union... do make me wonder... Did they always carry those in their pockets? Or did they expect to have to "prove" to someone who they are and aren't?

They were supposed to register at various places before the actual trek began (I believe at least Ivdel, but I need to check whether they were supposed to register in every town or just there.)  The passports may have been for that purpose.   They did not register, as they should have, however.  I think that had much to do with complacency, similar to Dyatlov not filing the route book with the sports club and committee as he was supposed to before the trek began.  At the time, a lot of policies were changing; Kruschev had begun decentralizing power, trying to make the regional parties take on more responsibilities however, that caused a lot of confusion (and never actually happened because like many things, Kruschev enacted a policy but then worked against implementing it.)  There was a lot of confusion at the time over who was actually in charge of what and where and that bled into almost every facet of life.

As to the trade union letter, are you referring to the one for Rustem for him to be released from work to go on the trip?  Yuri Yudin had talked about that they dedicated the hike to the twenty a first Congress in order to get the guys off of work but it resulted in them having a letter with them that indicated everyone was to help ensure the hike went without a hitch, lol.  That one makes me giggle because it is something I think most young twenty somethings would try to do to get off work and go spend time having fun. 
-Ren
 

March 19, 2021, 12:12:03 AM
Reply #9
Offline

armyeng


I think the argument against an attack is the sheer remoteness of the area, that it can only be reached via a multi-day ski trip or aircraft, and the presumed white-out conditions that evening/night which would make it harder to find them, at least from the air.

But it does seem to fit the scene, though not really the injuries: some of them were uninjured, other had major trauma that would require more force than being hit with a rifle (Semyon, Lyuda, and to a certain extent Nikolai).However the documents found on the hikers like a passport, or the letter from the trade union... do make me wonder... Did they always carry those in their pockets? Or did they expect to have to "prove" to someone who they are and aren't?

I disagree - these types of injuries could easily be inflicted by a few men with rifles or batons stomping/beating. Multiple men stomping or hitting a young female would certainly inflict large damage, break ribs. It would be easy to hit the men who probably stood up in the tent to try and escape in the head because their heads would be poking up.

I dont think this area is as remote as we suppose it is. There were local towns nearby or at least settlements as well as gulags. They were also traveling along the main known access ‘route’. If they were being followed or tracked, attackers could have come from any of these settlements with the attack occurring where the hikers were located that night. 

Because it was an ambush on the tent, it might have only been a few men who took advantage of their best opportunity to maximize injury. The somewhat orderly departure from the camp site seems to suggest the attackers didn’t have the numbers to fully control the group in an open fight. Likely they had rifles which gave them the ultimate advantage when the hikers burst out of the tent to confront their opponents. Likely that some hikers might have slipped away in the dark while only a few continued confronting the attackers. If it was a case of mistaken identify on behalf of the attackers an arguement could have ensued once the attackers realized they attacked the wrong group, which might have given enough time for them to recover their wounded and get away. If the conflict then increased once communication was happening between the attackers and the few hikers in dialogue with them  this could have lead to the last three being ‘pinned down’ near the tent facing back towards the aggressors- if the attackers began shooting at them or decided in the moment to pursue them once they were slipping away.
 

March 19, 2021, 12:57:11 PM
Reply #10
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:

Likely sequence:

1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on. 

2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point. 

3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.

4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.

5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.

6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.

7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.

8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.

Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers

Rubbish

Your take - UFO?

I dont have a take. UFO's have been observed in the area before during and after the Incident.
DB
 

March 19, 2021, 01:05:15 PM
Reply #11
Offline

armyeng


Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:

Likely sequence:

1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on. 

2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point. 

3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.

4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.

5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.

6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.

7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.

8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.

Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers

Rubbish

Your take - UFO?

I dont have a take. UFO's have been observed in the area before during and after the Incident.

Lol
 

April 26, 2021, 06:54:04 PM
Reply #12
Offline

Jacques-Emile


Lights from the sky - specifically, helicopter lights.  "Get out and form a line.  Walk to the trees."  What is better - you want yeti with wings?
 

April 30, 2021, 04:00:47 PM
Reply #13
Offline

Saltyseadog


yes there were rockets on 1/2 - 2/2.
These are officially unrecorded but mention is first made in radiograms of an observed UFO on morning of 1/2.
Then the Shumkov group reported the light when they were on Chistop. Either 1/2 or 2/2.
Then Dubinin and Krivonischenko in their statements also mention these although heard 3rd hand. Coincidence? I don't think so.
But did it crash, also I don't think so, it was just a meteorological rocket launched from Baikonur at the time.
I have investigated this and as in radiograms it is mentioned as a meteorological rocket and these were low altitude and the Soviet Union launched 25 in 1959 of which 13 were successful launches and 12 failed. So you see the Soviets were launching regular monthly or bi monthly meteorological rockets at this time.
 

May 19, 2021, 04:12:04 AM
Reply #14
Offline

sarapuk

Case-Files Achievement Recipient
Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis:

Likely sequence:

1. Hikers were under observation or pursuit by a hostile local group or had a negative interaction with them previously along their route (see motive below). Likely that hikers (college/military age males) could have gotten into mischief or had aggressive interaction between the local groups, initial scuffle and were concerned about being pursued later on. 

2. Hikers pitched tent in a tactically reasonable location with clear lines of sight all around tent to be able to observe another potential group approaching from a distance. The forest would not work, anyone looking for them would be able to follow tracks and sneak up on them easily. This is very important. hikers posted guards on shift (fully clothed) while the rest of the group remained in the tent to rest. Concern of being pursued might not have been extremely high at this point. 

3. Small group of ambushers (likely a smaller group than the hikers) captured guards, and surrounded the tent, or surrounded the tent when guards were inside at night during low visibility.

4. KEY - Ambushers used rifle butts, blunt objects to beat the hikers while they were inside the tent. The hikers would be most vulnerable at this point, and it would be very easy to inflict substantial damage similar to the evidence if all hikers were struggling inside the tent while attackers beat them. Attackers would have the advantage even if they didn't have the numbers. Intent was not to kill, but to beat them - I would suspect that this would be similar to a 'college type bar brawl' or 'crime of hatred' or 'domination to capture' versus an execution. Hikers frantically had no choice but to cut out of the tent.

5. Hostilities continued outside the tent, HOWEVER the attackers motives were clearly to "Beat/teach them a lesson and kick them out of the area" or to "Get something back/retrieve or neutralize evidence or possible reporting" and not to obviously execute/kill or steal. This makes sense because there was a relatively orderly departure from the camp by the hikers. Likely once the hikers burst out of the tent there was shouting back and forth, some fighting, the hikers grabbed or were allowed to recover their wounded before being forced off site in a hurry and under threat of being killed. Attackers likely understood hikers would perish and never be recovered. The attackers likely did not want to kill them, or they would be shot or beatings would continue in the tent until all were dead. The attackers likely were not thieves which implies they were well sustained/equipped. The attackers objectives were to beat them, flush them into the cold to die. This implies a attackers didn't want it to be obvious murder, or they couldn't bring themselves to directly murder. Could also imply they mistakenly took them for the wrong group and then flushed them out to die to cover their crime.

6. Under threat of being pursued and killed hikers recovered wounded all the way to the den area first and immediately began treating badly wounded. One collapsed from head injury and died on the way, two might have remained while being pursued (in darkness) to see if they could get back to the tent quickly to recover gear. Likely that at this point they could have been shot 'at' which would have forced them to stay low and kept them pinned down and unable to move for fear of being shot, or attackers were near and searching for them. Likely that they slipped into hypothermia at that point and lost strength to do anything. Two strong males were posted at the cedar tree to look for pursuers and keep watch/pre warning for members at the den. They would be able to see anyone coming and alert the others, while also keeping an eye out for the three pinned down near the tent. They were forced to start a fire to survive. 1.5km away is far enough to be able to return quickly and also observe the attackers.

7. Attackers likely at this point did not bother continuing pursuit or search (at night), but waited at or near the camp site for them to try and return, the group knew this, and this is why they did not move back and re-occupy the camp. Attackers knew by morning they would likely be all dead, would be forced to return due to cold. Likely in the morning attackers visited a few of the nearest bodies.

8. Attackers exited and cleared up their tracks.

Likely culprits:
1. Locals: Motives = cultural anger, encroachment on territory, mistaken identity, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers, response to theft?
2. Gulag guards: Motives = mistaken identify of escaped prisoners and cover up, hikers could have potentially interacted with them earlier and witnessed atrocities fears of witnessing/reporting crimes grew, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers. Guards could have suspected they were spies recording propaganda.
3. Military Patrols: Motives= mistaken identity and cover up, area denial, spy fear, retaliation for potential previous conflict with hikers

Rubbish

Your take - UFO?


I have no takes. And I dont talk rubbish.
DB
 

May 30, 2021, 12:10:06 PM
Reply #15
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


Army tactician here, this screams of classic ambush tactics used throughout most armies and offers the highest probability theory because this is how small armed tactics play out. The boiled down synopsis: [...]


Thank you for your realistic assessment.

However, I would not rule out a centrally planned governmental action. We know that the deaths of the nine students was known in Moscow on February 6, which was long before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any reason to suspect that something had happened to the Dyatlov group. There was a written report which was already made on February 6. Such a report with a preparation for a search is unlikely to have been written immediately after the event had become known.

Thus it would seem that Moscow knew about the fate of the students some days before the sixth of February, which, I reiterate, was long before anyone in the Sverdlovsk area could suspect anything. How did they know in Moscow that the nine were dead at that early date, unless the mission was planned and decided upon in Moscow?
 

May 31, 2021, 03:09:36 PM
Reply #16
Offline

Manti


How do we know Moscow knew about the deaths on Feb 6? Is there a document that corroborates this?
 

June 10, 2021, 04:59:29 AM
Reply #17
Offline

Jean Daniel Reuss





Part 1 : First, here are 3 preliminary warnings.


1 ==>  sararapuk is right: There is no juridically valid absolute certainty about the DPI.

 In other words, the explanation for the death of the 9 hikers is a problem that admits of several solutions.

This was also the idea of Vladimir Askinadzi, who has a more humorous view
In the meantime, all we have left to do is to entertain ourselves intellectually with a game of investigation.


2 ==> Alas! I was not able to force Satan to stay behind me since I now have my theory. I hope that Loose}{Cannon will forgive me and tolerate me !!!
    (All theories are flawed....... Get Behind Me Satan!!!)

I was inspired by the remarks and arguments of the authors called : supporters of the criminal version or homicide theory who are mainly (chronological order):
Per Inge Oestmoen (since March 12, 2018) Vladimir Askinadzi ("I don't know who or why were they murdered.")- Eduard Tumanov - Liyla79 - hoosiergose - NightLurker - armyeng...

And now I am adapting Aleks Kandr's (Алекс К  on https://taina.li/forum) very complete exposition by eliminating from his text the (fortunately few and useless) silly references to astrology.
http://mystery12home.ru/t-ub-gr-dyatlova
https://taina.li/forum/index.php?topic=1002.0


3 ==> I do not know yet what WAB's theory is exactly, but what he wrote for him can also apply to me:
   
  "You need a very large amount of text to explain your position. Especially considering the fact that many positions need to be explained in great detail, because they are not understood...
..............
 I do not have the energy, time or ability to do that...
..............
 I am not a writer, I am a researcher, I want the physical result of what happened, not the number of letters on a paper that will be read without understanding the meaning of what's written there..."



Part 2 :The 8 paragraphs of the armyeng sequence.


.........this is how small armed tactics play out..........................
Likely sequence:
1.) ...
2.) Hikers pitched tent.....
3.)....
4.)....
5.)....
6. ....
7.)....
8.) Attackers exited ..................

I almost agree. I will make some further refinements and significant differences in these 8 paragraphs of the likely sequence written by armyeng at a later date.

In the meantime, in order to fix ideas, here are some broad outlines of my explanatory hypothesis, which is very similar to Aleks Kandr's theory.

No staging - No forgery or false documents - Essential advantage for the attackers of total surprise and initiative - No firearms, only big sticks wrapped in rags to hit hard and silently...................

The instigators and commanders (clients) were one or several Stalinist officers of the NKVD, having high ranks, who feared, with great reason (particularly during the XXI° congress of the CPSU), the de-Stalinization and thus the purge of the former NKVD leaders by the KGB.

In other words, these Ivdellag officers did not want to be arrested and sentenced to death as they had been since Stalin's death:
Bogdan Kobulov, Lavrenti Beria, Mikhail Ryumin, Viktor Abakumov, Vsevolod Merkulov, Amaiak Kobulov, Boris Rodos....... and many other lesser known ones.

The mercenaries recruited for the surprise attack on the evening of February 1, 1959 were 3 former Gulag camp guards who were specialized in the pursuit and extermination of the very few Zeks who seldom escaped from the camps.

The 3 mercenaries attacking had also for mission not to make any staging in the zone of the fights (slope of the Kholat Syakhl, Cedar, Den) so that the Khrushchevian governors in the Kremlin understand immediately that it was about a terrorist attack and so to show the power of the opposition to the Khrushchev's Thaw.
     

Part 3 : Something that could be called paragraph 9 of armyeng and Per Inge Oestmoen.

9.) Evgeniy Buyanov = "investigator Korotaev was secretly asked to conduct an unofficial investigation before the official one was launched.  (This date of launch is February 6, 1959).

Reply #15
............................................


...  We know that the deaths of the nine students was known in Moscow on February 6, which was long before anyone in Sverdlovsk or Ivdel had any reason to suspect that something had happened to the Dyatlov group. There was a written report which was already made on February 6. Such a report with a preparation for a search is unlikely to have been written immediately after the event had become known.

Thus it would seem that Moscow knew about the fate of the students some days before the sixth of February, which, I reiterate, was long before anyone in the Sverdlovsk area could suspect anything. How did they know in Moscow that the nine were dead at that early date [?], unless the mission was planned and decided upon in Moscow?

               My hypothesis to explain this date of February 6 is very simple:

There were 3 mercenary killers, who followed the tracks of the hikers from North-2, and who attacked the tent on the evening of February 1, 1959 (let's say for simplicity at 8 PM), at the place where the tent was found (by the rescuers) on february 26 .

     As Eduard Tumanov says the "hikers took part in a fight... with outsiders.........."

This "Altercation on the pass" was in reality a succession of fierce hand-to-hand fights (but without firearms) which ended at 6 AM on February 2 with the death (plus some mutilations) of the 9 hikers and thus with the total victory of the 3 attacking killers.

After having rested and after having eaten the provisions (of the hikers) in the tent, the 3 attackers amused themselves (perhaps without any rational motive or to replace their lost soft leg bands) by cutting the tent canvas with the knife which had been used to remove the 4 eyes and the tongue.
.........
By following (in the opposite direction of the outward journey) the deep tracks from the tent to North-2 the 3 attackers were able to reach North-2 on February 2nd around 7 PM.
............
Good night's rest (February 2-3) at North-2 for the 3 very tired attackers...
.............
The next morning February 3, a motor vehicle with driver (speed on the snowy track=30 km/h) brought back the 3 attackers, to Vizhay, before noon (February 3).
................
But the 3 attackers were known to be, as it was said, unsavory brutal characters. The marks and bruises on their faces (Kolgomorove, Slobodin, Dyatlov...had hit hard while trying to defend themselves on the slope) looked suspicious.
...........
The 3 attackers were quickly reported to the authorities. (February 3 or 4).
..................
On the morning of February 4 at least one of the 3 attackers was arrested by the KGB.
................
After 2 days of intensive interrogations, that is to say on the evening of February 5, 2021, the suspect(s) had spoken. (because when it is necessary the KGB had effective and fast means to make the suspects speak).

Thus, from February 6, the KGB knew everything they wanted to know about the murders of the 9 hikers.
From then on it was completely useless to go and check on the spot, on the slopes of Kholat Syakhl. It was enough to wait peacefully for the continuation of the events: the discovery of the tent on February 26 (or 24?).
 
The KGB agents prefer to be more efficient by staying inside their comfortable and well heated offices, close to their phones, folders and papers.........
Jean Daniel Reuss

Rational guidance =

• There is nothing supernatural and mysterious about the injuries suffered by the Dyatlov group. They are all consistent with an attack by a group of professional killers who wanted to take the lives of the nine  [Per Inge Oestmoen].

• Now let us search for answers to: WHO ? WHY ? HOW ?

• The scenario must be consistent with the historical, political and psychological  contexts.

• The solution takes in consideration all known findings.
 

October 19, 2021, 07:57:54 AM
Reply #18
Offline

Per Inge Oestmoen


The KGB agents prefer to be more efficient by staying inside their comfortable and well heated offices, close to their phones, folders and papers.........


Pardon me for saying so, but if you reason generally well you are nevertheless mistaken here.

The KGB office workers were highly intelligent office workers. However, KGB was much more than their office workers.

The KGB special forces operators were probably the most select, intelligent, skilled and merciless killers and the most competent close combat specialists in all of human history. They were perfectly capable of orchestrating "accidents," "natural deaths" or "suicides" in numerous ways - and they did. It was their specialty.
 

October 20, 2021, 03:06:43 PM
Reply #19
Offline

Jean Daniel Reuss



                Reply #18
.......................
The KGB office workers were highly intelligent office workers. However, KGB was much more than their office workers.
The KGB special forces operators were probably the most select, intelligent, skilled and merciless killers and the most competent close combat specialists in all of human history. They were perfectly capable of orchestrating "accidents," "natural deaths" or "suicides" in numerous ways - and they did. It was their specialty.

I completely agree with this statement.

The KGB was created by Khrushchev on March 13, 1954, so one year after the death of Stalin, to replace the NKVD.
In 1959 it is a kind of apogee of the regime of Khrushchev. The KGB is at the disposal of Khrushchev to make triumph his politics of de-Stalinization.

The KGB was an official agency of a great country whose communist ideology hoped to become a model for all mankind.
The KGB was not a bunch of bloodthirsty gangsters working in a disorderly and anarchic way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB

Let's not forget that during Khrushchev's thaw (1953-1964) there were fewer arbitrary condemnations and massive (and badly controlled) releases of Zeks from Gulag camps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Apart from espionage, one of the many missions of the KGB was to fight external enemies and internal opponents by all means and also to protect the dignitaries of the regime and the good Soviet citizens.

--->   highly intelligent

It was much simpler to arrest the hikers on their return or before they left, then charge them and sentence them to death for treason or other pretexts.

Communist regimes are also known for more perverse methods. After undergoing a kind of brainwashing, the characters to be eliminated accused themselves of the worst imaginary crimes.
This is the theme of the novel "Darkness at Noon" by the British novelist Arthur Koestler.



°°°°°°°°°

What we know about the DPI does not match the KGB's killing methods.

--->   perfectly capable of orchestrating

If the death of the hikers was staged to look like a natural accident, then it was poorly staged.
Indeed, more than 60 years later, there is no certainty and the discussions continue all over the world.
It would have been easy to stage a death to make the illusion of a natural death obvious enough so that any other suspicion would be ridiculous.

For example, find the hikers all drowned, trapped under the broken ice of a river. Or all freezing to death, crammed into the location of the completely destroyed tent.

If this is the way of terrorism, it is to show or make clear that opponents or traitors are always caught and punished.
 Then there should be material and visible evidence of a voluntary execution. For example, traces of rifle bullets.

On the contrary, to make the bodies disappear entirely would have left a disturbing mystery and allowed a lot of accusatory suppositions




°°°°°°°°°

 What I am absolutely convinced of (this is perhaps the central point of the discussion on the responsibility of the KGB) is that even if the hikers had seen a top secret military test, they could not have deduced from it considerable and sensitive information obliging to be silenced by killing them on the field.

The 8 students or former students of UPI seem to have been exemplary Soviet citizens.
Zolotaryov was a decorated veteran of the Great Patriotic War, and nothing serious could be blamed on him, even though he subsequently led a somewhat disordered independent life. 
It is also possible that Zolotaryov had various relations with the KGB, in the kind of occasional informant.

It would be surprising if these nine people, for whom nothing could be reproached politically, at least on the surface, could represent a sufficiently important danger to require their immediate elimination.

If they are guilty of something that requires death, it is necessary first to make sure that there are no possible accomplices and also to find out how these 9 apparently blameless people were influenced in a harmful way (indispensable investigations among relations, in families, at the UPI ... etc.)

For an important and official service like the KGB, to kill the 9 hikers without interrogating them for months, with adequate means, would have been a huge mistake.
Because the dead do not speak and will never speak again.

As an illustration, Georg Elser, the author of the failed attempt to kill Hitler, on November 8, 1939, in Munich, was carefully kept alive for long interrogations.

  Hitler issued an order to Heydrich: 'I would like to know what kind of man this Elser is. We must be able to classify him somehow. Report back to me on this. And furthermore,  use all means to get this criminal to talk.   Have him hypnotized, give him drugs; make use of everything of this nature our scientists have tried.   I want to know who the instigators are. I want to know who is behind this.'  
Jean Daniel Reuss

Rational guidance =

• There is nothing supernatural and mysterious about the injuries suffered by the Dyatlov group. They are all consistent with an attack by a group of professional killers who wanted to take the lives of the nine  [Per Inge Oestmoen].

• Now let us search for answers to: WHO ? WHY ? HOW ?

• The scenario must be consistent with the historical, political and psychological  contexts.

• The solution takes in consideration all known findings.